[CoffeeDregs]

    >it's very tough to evaluate the credibility of 
    >a "business" co-founder until he's achieved success.

That's not at all true. It may be very tough for a technical person to evaluate a "business" co-founder, but it isn't any tougher than the reverse. I have both an MSEE and an MBA and I have both business and technical roles as a co-founder of a mid-sized, venture-funded firm, so I consider myself a decent judge of this. Whether business or technology, smart folks stand out like blinking red lights because they exhibit a sharp enthusiasm for their domain, have the ability to quickly get to the core issues and see possibility and solutions where others see or search-for complexity.

    > Another viewpoint is that the valuation of 
    >businesspeople carries with it a much higher risk multiplier.

Then you've never worked with a mediocre tech team. The amount of damage that a not-good tech person can do can be remarkable. In particular, the damage is often invisible and can persist for years. A small sloppy commit at the start of a project can produce a bull-whip-effect 2 years later... "Business" people can do this, too, but it's been my experience that the damage they do is more quickly identified and contained. Anything a business person is doing that is large-ish will have lots of eyes on it and anything small is usually pretty minor to the business.

[jonnathanson]

"Then you've never worked with a mediocre tech team. The amount of damage that a not-good tech person can do can be remarkable."

This is a fair point, but it's orthogonal to mine. When I spoke about the "risk multiplier," I was speaking about the risk of unknown/unknowable information. To use the MBA parlance, businesspeople are experience goods moreso than technical people are. My thesis is that you can ferret out a bad technical person more quickly and more easily than you can ferret out a bullshit businessperson -- thus making businesspeople, as a set, more risky because you often have to "buy before you try."

There's no question that a bad technical worker can deal as much damage as a bad business person. But that wasn't my point.

Now, perhaps you also take issue with my thesis itself: that businesspeople are tougher to evaluate up front than technical people are. In my experience, this is often the case. If your experience tells you otherwise, so be it. I would consider this a fundamental difference of opinions, probably based on different experiences.

[CoffeeDregs]

    > businesspeople are experience goods

Ask a businesspeople or two whether they think a techpeople is an experience good. I'll bet you $10 they do.

Also, "experience good" seems a particularly confusing analogy here since it would seem to support my point as well as yours (me: business 'people'; you: business 'person').

    > My thesis is that you can ferret out a bad technical person more 
    > quickly and more easily than you can ferret out a 
    > bullshit businessperson

And this is where I disagree. Once you've experienced enough of tech or business folks, it's not too difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in either. To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen a bullshit business person in quite a while. I think this is mostly because it's easy to see them and ignore them.

OTOH, I have seen plenty of bullshit technical people who've snowed the business people in their companies (I can think of one client who's been through 3 in 9 months).

    > I would consider this a fundamental difference of opinions

That's a bummer. Seems like we each had valid points and had an interesting discussion afoot.

    > probably based on different experiences

Agreed. My experience says that "we" and "they" have similar concerns and each would benefit from understanding the other's perspectives and experiences.